To determine whether a particular action was
decided upon by an individual or whether the action was predetermined one must
study its cause. In studying cause one
finds that there are two types of causes those that are typified by natural
laws, such as a dropped book falling to the ground, and those typified by the
moral considerations of men. This
distinction is important because it shows both that no man can control his
environment contrary to the laws of natural or scientific laws, but neither are
his actions completely out of his control.
The first type of cause we can consider as
accepted facts, these would be the natural and scientific laws that all objects
must obey. It is obviously false to
assume that a man may walk through a tree or fly like a bird, but these things
can be factors in the set of causes leading to an action.
The second type of cause is more difficult to
define. It is made up of the past
experience and perceptions of men, but more importantly it is the way in which men use these things. This type of cause is arrived at differently
in everyone, and it cannot be measured, predicted, or understood as well as the
other type. In fact it is often unable
to be seen at all, but it must exist simply because the entire world or even
the simple workings of one man's brain cannot be described completely using
only the laws of nature. A complex moral
decision is created in the mind of men by more that just a random or
predictable set of electrical impulses, but by the not completely understood
spiritual and psychological make-up of men.
This type is the "true" cause of an action.
When one sees this combination of causes he
must accept the idea of dualism. Dualism
is the idea that there are two hemispheres of the universe, the physical,
ordered and understood by science, and the spiritual, abstract and not
understood. The spiritual hemisphere is
the force that guides actions that cannot be explained solely by physical
causes. While the moralistic cause may
have more weight in the type of action, it cannot ever defy natural laws. For this reason both radical determinism and
free will seem impossible. With this
description given, to determine the amount of free will that a thing has, it is
only necessary to see how that thing uses or is affected by the two types of
causes.
Let us first consider man. Man is obviously the creature for which this
argument is designed principally. Man is
affected by his physical surroundings and uses a complex cognitive system and a
complicated set of morals to consider his actions. Man might first, upon seeing a picture, be
stimulated neurologically by and use past experience to make a recognized
pattern from the shapes seen. This would
be the purely physical and determine reaction to the picture, but this would
probably not be the total reaction. Man
might use his knowledge to create opinions about the picture, he might
experience an emotion in response to it.
He might ultimately make judgments based on the opinions and emotions
that in a way that is not scientifically ordered, understood, or
predictable. Man then, must have free
will within the bounds of natural law.
The distinction is more difficult in the case
of a dog. A dog quite obviously is
affected by his physical surroundings, but can he use cognitive processes to
make decisions beyond his instinctual drives?
The answer to this question is yes, and no. A dog can rely on past
experience and in the very simplistic ideas of rewards and punishments can
determine right from wrong. This alone
does not give a dog free will, he could still be bounded by his past experience
and have little conscience effect on his decisions. However, as many dog owners know, dogs often
do purely "human" things which show their ability to exert some level
of control over their actions beyond the instinctual level. For example, a dog probably, on seeing his
owner after being left alone for the day, would have the physical reaction of
noting the presence of and recognizing the owner. The dog might connect the return of the owner
with a filling of his food dish and anticipate it with hunger. These would be determined reactions set both
by the instincts of the animal and his past experiences, however, the dog might
also feel the emotion of anger towards the owner for having left him alone for
the day, and act out against him to show his displeasure. This would be an example of the dog working
outside of or even against his instincts and exerting some level of control
over his actions. This leads one to
believe that a dog does have a minimal amount of free will, again within the
constraints of his physical environment.
Lastly it is less difficult to decide the
amount of the of free will that a rock has.
A rock is affected by its physical environment, but has no means of
decision making in order to act on its own.
It therefore is affected solely by its environment and has no free will.
No comments:
Post a Comment